Thimmanna vs Union Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 5672 Kant

                            1

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

        WRIT PETITION NO.22279 OF 2021(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

THIMMANNA,
S/O LATE DASANABHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.87, ASHIRWAD: 3RD CROSS,
KANAKA MARGA,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT,
ULLAL MAIN ROAD,
JNANABHARATHI POST,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
                                            ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADVOCATE)

AND:

UNION BANK OF INDIA.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL HEAD,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU (EAST),
NO.487, 32 E CROSS,
19TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK,
SANJAY GANDHI HOSPITAL ROAD,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
                                          ... RESPONDENT

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.09.2021 VIDE ANNEX-B.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                    2


                            ORDER

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the

respondent-bank whereby petitioner, a practicing lawyer has

not been continued on its Panel of Advocates.

2. The vehement submission of the learned counsel for

petitioner that the client could not have been abruptly

discontinued on the Panel and without a prior notice, and

therefore the impugned order is vulnerable for challenge, is bit

difficult to countenance since empanelment is a matter of

discretion of the bank concerned; the exercise of such discretion

involves a host of factors including the fiduciary relationship of

'client & counsel'; in matters of this kind a Writ Court cannot

ordinarily interfere & undertake a deeper examination.

3. The text of the impugned order cannot be construed

as attaching stigma to the petitioner as a professional; the bank

has exercised its prerogative in empaneling the lawyers of its

choice and not empaneling the petitioner; such an exercise

cannot be faulted, subject to all just exceptions into which

argued case of the petitioner does not fit.

In the above circumstances, writ petition being devoid of

merits is liable to be rejected in limine and accordingly it is.

Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the

respondent-bank by Speed Post forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb/